~ This blog will be an attempt to explain the significance of various works of great writing, the authors that create them, and some effort to understand correlations between great writing and contemporary events.

Pixar has become in many ways an abusive boyfriend. True he does really nice things for me like spray-painting my name across twenty cars of trains or baking me a cake on my birthday just because he thinks I’m special, but likewise he’s done horrible things too, like abuse me psychologically and sometimes physically. I don’t want to trust him again when he’s back with something new. But he smiles at me and he’s wearing that tank-top so that I can see his tats on those biceps of his and, well, a girl can only hold out so much. Likewise with Disney and Pixar in general I’ve come to an odd position of careful mistrust. Disney as a company is a rather soulless institution that had purchased an alarming amount of my childhood within the last decade, and it’s also released Frozen. However, despite this I do intend to see Finding Dory because say whatever you will about the economic side of Disney, as an artistic production center they never fail (except with Frozen and Cars 2) to disappoint me.

This doesn’t have to do with reviewing Finding Nemo, but I couldn’t resist writing the opening paragraph. One has to indulge where one can.

My sister and I have come to the conclusion that Finding Nemo is a film entirely about mental illness. We’ve reached this conclusion through a series of observations about each character in the film, and so as an effort of charity I’ll go through them one by one and allow the reader to decide for themselves whether they agree with my diagnosis or not.

First of all, there is the obvious case of Dory. While at the beginning the diagnosis is the obvious short term memory loss, which she provides for the viewer and Marlin, there is also an element of co-dependency on her part. The reader may object immediately, she would have to be if she suffers from short-term memory loss she would most likely have to have someone with her to watch over her and keep her company. The problem with that is that she clearly didn’t have that. Dory literally collides with Marlin while he chases after the boat with the divers who kidnapped Nemo, and if she truly had people in her life who cared about her why was she swimming all by herself? I’m sure Finding Dory will answer this, though the interpretation I prefer is that Dory was originally following an individual fish whom she had clung to, and as soon as she was distracted this person jumped ship. Because Dory is used to having a companion she quickly attached herself to Marlin in order to satisfy the need for company, for since she can’t remember much having someone else to occupy space close to her is the way she copes with reality.

This is the weakest diagnosis seeing as how she is already complicated with memory problems.

Second are the fish in the tank. These characters alone could fill a DSM, for each one demonstrates a different crisis. The Yellow Tang obsessed with bubbles, who believe it or not is actually named Bubbles, has clearly suffered a complete mental breakdown. He was most likely the first fish in the tank and the isolation, coupled with the traumatic re-location from his original owner/family/friends/etc. broke his mind. During the initial stage of this psychosis his mind must have latched upon the images of the bubbles and so whenever the treasure chest opens and the bubbles come out he screams and shouts the words “Bubbles! My bubbles” in a desperate attempt to have his voice be heard. More importantly this declaration of “my Bubbles” represents a desperation to own or possess a solid material reality from which he is able to derive some kind of comfort.

Second is Deb/Flo. This poor woman was most likely the second fish in the tank. She has manifested dissociative Identity disorder in the way she has created her “sister” which is really nothing more than her reflection on the walls of the tank. Because “Bubbles” was broken before she arrived in the tank she would have had no one-on-one contact with a healthy mind. As such she sought solace originally in her reflection. Much like Travis Bickle would develop his psychosis in relation to a mirror (the famous “You talkin to me?” line was ad-libbed as you probably know because your best friend who’s studying film will never shut-up about it), Deb created an imaginary persona of Flo first as a mental solace to combat soul-crushing loneliness. However, as time when on, and Bubbles’s constant screaming and psychotic behavior escalated, Deb began to look upon Flo with more desperation creating and fueling a vagueness concerning reality. Flo was most likely imagined as a sister at first so that Deb could struggle with separation from her family. Having a sister who was also a friend would help tremendously. Eventually Flo assumed more personality and Deb too was broken.

In walks Gurgle. Now his mental illness was most likely established before he arrived in the tank. He most likely suffered from neurosis before he arrived in the tank, however his germaphobia could have manifested upon entering the tank of watching the erratic behavior of his tank-mates. Being a “neat freak” when he was introduced into the habitat of the tank, and being stuck with a psychotic and a Split/Personality allowed his neurosis to fester into something severe.

Now Bloat’s condition, the puffer-fish, like Gill and Peach, is far more manageable. His neurotic behavior manifests in a comfortable cabin fever. Watching the Root Canal scene reveals this for he, like many of the fish, have established a kind of psychological comfort in watching the agony and suffering of those who come to the dentist. Keeping himself engaged with outside activity, specifically the physical suffering of others preserves his sanity against the near constant insanity that is the inside of the tank. In this way Peach and Bloat are suffering from some form of latent sadism.

Now for the gathering of fish who entertain Dory while she and Marlin have begun the search for “P.Sherman, 42 Wallaby Lane, Sydney.” The viewer will note that these fish move as one large body, a habit that is typical of schools of fish in general. However, while they move in a school, their interaction with Dory and Marlin acts as one body. There is a central figure, a faceless voice that commands them, and this in turn leads to the grim conclusion that the fish speaking (John Ratzenberger’s obligatory Pixar role) is most certainly a dictator who has managed to colonize the minds of his followers. The fish behave and act as one surrendering their will and bodies to the desire of the speaker. Taking the shape of a pirate ship, swordfish, lobster, and octopus demonstrate that the individual fish have lost all of their agency and have, in effect, surrendered their will to a totalitarian despot. The larger conflict emerges however as this fish is never actually seen speaking. As such it becomes clear all of these fish are speaking the voice of this anonymous speaker which leads to far more horrifying conclusion. There must have been an original individual fish who attempted to consolidate power over the group. As it became clear that this was impossible, he steadily began to infect each fish with the suggestion that he was their master, mind, and body all at once. This indoctrination campaign continued until, even after the fish was devoured by tuna and porpoises, his life force continued after him controlling the school. The gathering of fish represents a microcosm of the “Orwellian Nightmare.”

The issue of Bruce, Anchor, and Chum is most clearly exemplified in a combination of abandonment issues as well as identity crisis formed in Marxian self-recognition. The latter is clearly demonstrated in the groups opening remarks:

Bruce: [reciting] I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food.

The three sharks have suffered an intense identity crisis that has left them paralyzed and struggling for a new variety of identity that would afford them some kind of working agency. This self-negation of basic biology is most likely rooted either in a kind of Existential crisis, or else perhaps a kind of Marxian conundrum. A shark’s purpose/role in the ocean is to eat and devour. Rejecting this image is in essence rejection of the societal economics and thus the sharks are in fact attempting to overthrow the superstructure of the ocean at large. This early Marxian interpretation of their role was eventually abandoned however as the sharks began to recognize that Communism as an ideology is ultimately Utopic, and Utopic ideology’s cannot work in reality, only in theory. With this recognition came the existential crisis, for existentialism despite the popular hoopla actually asserts the right of the individual to establish some kind of self in society, it affords choice. The sharks moved towards existential identities hoping to overcome the guilt of their existence.

Just as important in this decision is their location for the meeting. The sharks chose a sunken submarine as a symbolic declaration of their being. The submarine is a weapon of war designed to kill, rip, and tear into ships. By establishing a base of operations within the ruined submarine, the sharks recognize that they as individual sharks are creating a new identity in the destroyed symbol of destruction, death, and carnage.

Now as to why they began this path I cannot establish any clear origins apart from some variety of guilt most likely going back to their Marxian crisis. It’s likely the sharks saw themselves as Oceanic Industrial Bourgeoisie. Tired of their material existence, and feeling an intense guilt from profiting off of the proletariat, a.k.a. the weaker fish, they began a path to refute this identity and create a new utopic order of mutual shark/fish society.

Next come the seagulls. The seagulls, who constantly shout “mine,” continue this notion of Marxian dynamics, for ultimately they represent the broken proletariat. At one point the seagulls were like the pelicans who assume a functioning identity and balance in the Oceanic Economic superstructure, however the steady rat-race of capturing and eating food eventually and slowly reduced their minds into a state of material reality. The sickening part is that this concern for material wealth or goods in the form of food eventually caused a traumatic split in reality developing into a nasty solipsism. The Seagull’s are always calling out for “mine,” because they have abandoned the notion that there exists anything outside of their own mind. Much like the “I” of Descartes’s Cogito Ergo Sum, “I think therefore I am,” the seagulls know only the “I.” There aren’t even other seagulls because there is only the implied “I” of “mine.” Shouting the words “mine” implies: “This/That is Mine, it belongs to me, I am important, I am everything, I AM.” The “Mine” becomes a pathetic display of ego then for ultimately by declaring food as “mine” the seagulls are trying desperately to prove that they matter and that they are in fact real. They are constantly shouting “I” into the universe hoping that their existence will matter.

Finally I come to Marlin who begins this whole struggle. Given everything that I have written up to this point it may become clear the direction that I’m taking.

Marlin is insane.

When the Barracuda attacks Marlin and Coral outside of their home the viewer is shown Marlin being struck unconscious. He awakes in the dark implying a long expanse of time. Now being struck unconscious for extended periods of time can cause serious brain damage, and when Marlin awakes he discovers that Coral is absent, likely eaten whole by the barracuda, and all of the eggs holding his children are missing. The long state of unconsciousness, coupled with the intense trauma of losing his entire family most assuredly drove Marlin insane, and thus by implication the entire events of Finding Nemo are in fact nothing more than delusions he is suffering from while floating around in his sea anemone. Each fish he “encounters” allows him to recreate his identity as the sane individual in a sea of madness, and thus he becomes, in essence, god of his world providing order in a universe that is seemingly nothing but chaos and competition between the species. The trauma of losing his wife and children destroyed Marlin and so he, like many before him, retreated into a broken mind desperate to find some narrative that would justify the random act of violence that destroyed his life. By creating the narrative of Finding Nemo Marlin attempts in his own way to write a narrative that allows his mind some kind of closure and control, when in fact he is nothing more than a broken madman shouting within his empty anemone.

Finding Nemo then, must be understood as a film about mental illness for nothing could justify the first ten minutes of what is in fact a beautiful film about family and overcoming personal trauma. By looking at each fish as insane a new idea of the ocean and reality becomes clear: Marlin is a madman in the vein of Dr. Parnassus dreaming and narrating this world into being hoping desperately that no one will interrupt the speaker lest the world will crumble and he’s forced to face the fact that he lost everything in one moment.

Or, it could simply be cute kids movie about a dad trying to find his son. Odds are one of these interpretations will sell t-shirts, and at the end of the day that’s all Disney is after anyway.

*Writer’s Note*

The reader dares to mock or question my interpretation of the events? They ask me what psychological credentials I have to make such a bold assertion about their favorite movie? Why my rights come from television in fact. I like many people in the late 90s watched every episode of Frasier, especially the ones where he analyzed himself, and taking those lessons in hand I am able to clearly understand EVERY aspect of psychosis and mental disorders.

Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse on the same screen will never happen again. The reality of licensing issues, as well as Disney’s general soullessness will prevent their beloved Mickey from ever appearing on screen alongside Bugs Bunny who’s fallen upon hard times in recent reboots. The other problem is the fact that the last time he was on screen alongside the infamous rabbit the following scene appeared:

I remember being a kid and watching this scene enraptured by the fact that Mickey Mouse could appear alongside Bugs Bunny, who was always my favorite of the two (he just had more character than Mickey) on the same screen. Even at that age I understood the basics of corporate copyright and that even though it would be awesome for the pair of them to star in a cartoon together, the adults in charge of such decisions didn’t want it because it would be complicated, cost money, and that you’d probably have to involve lawyers. I take some pride in recognizing that even at that age I realized that most lawyers were subhuman. Still watching this scene just the other day with my family I was amazed even then that such a moment could actually happen. That’s why the movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Has remained not only one of my favorite films, but also one that leaves me intrigued.

Before I get to that though I need to address Jessica Rabbit.

My first introduction of the character wasn’t actually her vivacious performance in the film, but actually a few cartoons of her in one of my father’s Playboys. I’ve written before that I would often steal these magazines and look through them entranced by the naked women found therein, but between my careful studies of the centerfolds I actually really enjoyed the comics and artwork. Jessica Rabbit, before I knew who she was, was one of my favorites for two obvious reasons: the first was her two curvaceous breasts and the second was her ridiculous body shape, see what I did there? Since the film premiered in 1988, Jessica Rabbit has become a cartoon sex symbol before Japanese tentacle porn became a parody of itself. Straight men everywhere had collected hard-ons for Jessica Rabbit, and the following lines were memorized by puberty-stricken boys (like I was some painfully short time ago) everywhere:

Jessica Rabbit: You don’t know how hard it is being a woman looking the way I do.

Eddie Valiant: You don’t know how hard it is being a man looking at a woman looking the way you do.

The various boobs puns and physical jokes made Who Framed Roger Rabbit the secretly adult film that everybody enjoyed. The conflict became, as so often happens, with young men who couldn’t get laid turning her character into a fetish. Roger Rabbit, Jessica’s husband, is a dork and a nerd by any standards and so the relationship has become a kind of symbol for bitter men everywhere. The attitude of “Girls should like me because I’m a nice guy” has festered into something perverse and Jessica Rabbit became a prominent figure in this fucked up farce of manners. Jessica Rabbit, with her fleshy plump boobs, was the girl every guy wanted to get, and the boys who watched the film figured that because they were dorks like Roger that meant that they “deserved” a girl as equally attractive.

The problem with this mentality is that it’s bullshit.

The relationship between Roger and Jessica was never about Jessica feeling that Roger deserved her, and in fact had these bitter men been paying attention they would have noticed this. Roger is a dork and a clutz, but he treats his wife with respect. Rather than worshipping her, or lavishing affection on her solely because she’s beautiful, Roger treats her as an equal. Roger doesn’t see a woman with massive breasts, he sees a woman whom he loves and respects and in this way Who Framed Roger Rabbit? managed to give one of the most missed feminist narratives in cinematic history.

Likewise many young men apparently missed a subtle important lesson later in the plot:

Case and point: Just because you’re nice doesn’t mean you’re going to get the girl; you’ve got to do something that impresses her enough to realize you’re worth her time and humor certainly helps.

This review isn’t just about Jessica Rabbit’s breasts and feminism however, for while at first the film may appear just a wacky romp involving a once in a lifetime merging of licensing and corporate products, the film is actually one of the great murder mystery movies of all time. The reason for this success is really Bob Hoskins and Christopher Lloyd. These two men hold a special place in my heart as actors because both men starred in films that helped shape my early mind and self. Christopher Lloyd shall always be the wacky librarian from The PageMaster, and Bob Hoskins will always be Mr. Smee from the movie Hook. While neither men achieved A-list celebrity status in their life they both managed throughout their careers as actors to bring something unique to their craft as well as their performances.

Bob Hoskins plays Eddie Valiant, a former police detective who’s retired after his brother was murdered by a toon in a place called Toon-Town. For the record his brother had a piano dropped on his head and no that isn’t a joke. It is but it isn’t, does that make sense? Down on his luck and struggling with alcoholism Eddie’s hired by R.K. Maroon, head of Maroon pictures to take photographs of Roger Rabbit’s wife. He discovers that Jessica Rabbit is playing Patty-Cake with Marvin Acme (the hand game, phrasing, though it really is just patty-cake) and when Roger Rabbitt find out he goes nuts. When Marvin Acme has a safe dropped on his head everybody looks to Roger, especially a character by the name of Judge Doom. The film follows Roger and Eddie as the two of them try desperately to prove Roger’s innocence and figure out “who dunnit?” Signs point originally to Roger, then Jessica, then R.K. Maroon, then finally to Judge Doom played by Lloyd.

Christopher Lloyd, as I said before, will always be the cooky librarian from The PageMaster, as well as the Pagemaster himself, and in many ways it’s disgraceful how underappreciated he is as an actor. Playing Judge Doom the man manages to outperform almost everyone apart from Hoskins, the pinnacle point being his brief monologue explaining why he wants to destroy Toon-Town and all cartoons period:

Judge Doom: [Explaining his plan to wipe out Toon Town] A few weeks ago I had the good providence to stumble upon a plan of the city council. A construction plan of epic proportions. We’re calling it a freeway.

Judge Doom: Eight lanes of shimmering cement running from here to Pasadena. Smooth, safe, fast. Traffic jams will be a thing of the past.

Eddie Valiant: So that’s why you killed Acme and Maroon? For this freeway? I don’t get it.

Judge Doom: Of course not. You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night. Soon, where Toon Town once stood will be a string of gas stations, inexpensive motels, restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food. Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it’ll be beautiful.

It’s difficult to accurately convey how hilarious this plan is unveiled, and while from afar it seems ridiculous the reason is because it is. The film is set in 1947, before the Eisenhower administration would begin the massive infrastructure project that would actually make this “freeway” a reality. The joke of course is that nobody would build this monstrosity because it would reduce the natural “beauty” of the Californian landscape, not to mention destroy Toon-Town which brings people true happiness. Judge Doom doesn’t care however for its ultimately revealed that he himself is a homicidal toon, the very toon in fact who killed Eddie’s brother.

The reader may at this point wonder what the real artistic merit of this ridiculous film could be? By the sounds of it the film is ludicrous and possibly sexist and so what value could there be other than the nostalgia factor of watching Loony Tunes and Disney characters intermingle?

This is a fair question given the fact that from afar this film may not seem to possesses much depth, but in fact Who Framed Roger Rabbit? explores an important idea: the American Creative Landscape.

Animation was not invented Americans, but it was certainly developed and processed by them. Men like Walt Disney through his Mickey Mouse and Goofy specials steadily introduced new possibilities for storytelling through animation. The physical stunts of Goofy remain a standard of physical comedy equal to actors like Charlie Chaplain and Buster Keaton. Much later when Warner Brothers would begin to fashion the characters of Daffy Duck, Bugs Bunny, and Wiley Coyote, these standards and story structures would alter as the slapstick of ACME inventions and “Wabbit Season” became not just amusing shorts, but the defining images of a generation. Toons are an American invention and the landscape they inhabit typically involves the American landscape. Take Wiley Coyote, the man, or coyote really, who defined the term quagmire. His relentless efforts to capture the Roadrunner to satisfy his hunger always take place on the American highway, specifically the western plains of Utah and Colorado with its steeps and canyons. Bugs Bunny, still history’s greatest winner, came to embody the idea of America and what America stood for. It wouldn’t be until Jim Henson created Kermit the Frog that Americans would have a non-human that so embodied the American spirit. I may be gushing now, but all that I am attempting to convey is the fact that generations of young people grew up watching Loony Tunes and Disney movies, and so in many ways cartoons constitute a greater reality for people of my and previous generations than their own government or elected officials.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is a murder mystery but it is also a reproduction of consciousness. Watching cartoons growing up, laughing at them, and internalizing these characters there’s a moment in the film that should create a necessary pause for reflection. Eddie’s stopped Roger from entertaining some drunks in a bar:

Eddie Valiant: You crazy rabbit! I’m out there risking my neck for you, and what are you doing? Singing and dancing!

Roger Rabbit: But I’m a toon. Toons are supposed to make people laugh.

Roger Rabbit: That’s right! A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it’s the only weapon we have.

An old expression goes “first kill all the lawyers.” In dictatorship there’s another adage: “First kill all the writers.” Power is a force and influence that holds sway over our reality because ultimately every human being attempts in some way to achieve it and hold fast to it; the moral degenerates of society that desire power so that they may stamp out their own failings despise laughter because ultimately power is reduced by laughter. The reason a society protects the rights of comedians and writers to tell jokes is because it allows the people, who hold lesser powers than the chiefs of state, to feel for a moment that they are equal. Laughing at Will Ferrell’s George W. Bush impression, at Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin impression, and Dan Akroid’s Regan impression humanized those men because people began to remember that politicians are human beings, fallible human beings. Who Framed Roger Rabbit?is not a political film by any means, but this small clip is a reminder of the power that power holds over people.

Characters like Bugs Bunny, Goofy, and Bettie Boop are in many ways more real than Kings and Presidents because they have contributed more directly to people’s personal lives. Laughing at Wiley Coyote blowing himself up was always more real than the Monica Lewinsky scandal as a kid because it had more pressing relevance. Laughing at the coyote’s failure was a way of coping with the chaotic, and at times, malevolent real world that was childhood. When I watched him blow up I didn’t think about being picked on because I was bad at sports, or that I felt like I wasn’t a good son to my father, or about the way my grandparents would fight. Laughter is the only way to combat the real absurdity of human existence.

For example, combatting the prospect of death, one can always fall back upon the old gags:

Roger Rabbit: [taking drink] Listen, when I say I do, that means I do.

[Roger smokes up, releasing himself from Judge Doom, and Eddie takes out the Weasels]

Ultimately no one knows who Judge Doom really was, or why he did the things he did, but in the end a gathering of Toons assembles when Acme’s will is discovered and it all ends with Porky Pig saying goodbye to the audience. Toons embody a plane of the human consciousness that is ultimately unknowable, but their power over us is undeniable and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is about exploring that terrain. On the one hand watching Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny fall together in one shot is about nostalgia and pathos, but on the other hands it’s an opportunity to look upon the physical gag of opening a parachute and finding a tire instead. It’s a cheap gag, and will make you laugh, but in that moment the world is reduced to a memory and philosophic opportunity.

Laughing at Eddie Valiant fall is remembering the joke, and for a moment parting with who we are to abandon ourselves to sheer absurdity. Reality is weird and even after thousands of years human beings really have no idea what is going on in existence. Faced with such overwhelming absurdity laughing at a rabbit get a fridge dropped on his head really isn’t that far away from recognizing your own mortality and laughing it off.

And so, as a great man once said:

[last lines]

Porky Pig: All right. M-m-m-ove along now. Th-th-there’s nothing left to see here. That’s all folks. Mmm, I like the sound of that. [Turns to audience; iris closes in on Porky and “Merry-Go-Round Broke Down” plays on soundtrack] Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!

*Writer’s Note*

There wasn’t really an opportunity to include it in the essay, but in one of my favorite Calvin Hobbes sketches the two friends are walking through the woods talking about absurdity and how odd it is that human beings laugh at it. If you pay attention there’s a moment of philosophic and comedic brilliance that could only ever be achieved by Bill Waterson. Enjoy: